JX 1963 
.M18 
Copy 1 




Book_ L ■ C 












e 


\ 


A MONOGRAPH 


O N 

INTERNATIONAL PEACE 

INVOLVING COMMENTS ON THE 

INTERNATIONAL POLICE POWER, 
EORUn and PROCEDURE 

BY 

LISTON MCMILLEN 

n 

COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW 


PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 

1905, A. D. 


OSKALOOSA, IOWA. 







' ®CT 22 19' 3 


PREFACE. 

This monograph is written as an humble con¬ 
tribution to the international peace literature; and 
is prompted by the assurance in the sacred writings 
that the time shall come when <c nation shall not lift 
up the sword against nation”—an exceedingly 
precious promise, full of encouragement to optimis¬ 
tic faith and effort. The sacred promises, however, 
are all conditional. Among these conditions are 
that we must do our part, and work together with 
God. We must do what we can to bring the prom¬ 
ised blessing about—help answer to our prayers. 

The divine plan of salvation is through knowl¬ 
edge of the truth. “Ye shall know the truth and 
the truth shall make you free.” It has accordingly 
seemed to the writer that a discussion of the leading 
basic principles of international jurisdiction might 
aid in the evolution of international truth and be 
helpful in the cause of international peace. In this 
spirit this little treatise is written and submitted to 
workers in this great cause. 

BY THE AUTHOR. 

Oskaloosa, Iowa, U. S. A. July, 1905 A. D. 






Table of Contents. 


CHAPTER I. 

INTERNATIONAL LAW— 

Sec. 1. Definition and Distinction. 

Sec. 2. No Vacuum in Sovereignty. 

Sec. 3. The Origin and Nature of International Law. 
Sec. 4. The Monroe Doctrine. 

Sec. 5. International Courtesy. 

Sec. 6. A Case in Point. 

Sec. 7. An Example of True International Courtesy. 
Sec. 8. International Police-Power. 

Sec. 9. International Jurisdiction. 

Sec. 10. The Law of Peace. 

CHAPTER II. 

THE INTERNATIONAL JUDICIARY— 

Sec. 11. Existence Implied. 

Sec. 12. Membership and Franchise. 

Sec. 13. Majority-Rule. 

Sec. 14. International Tutelage. 

Sec. 15. The Rudimentary Nature of the International 
Court. 

Sec. 16. The Temple of Peace. 

CHAPTER III. 

INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION— 

Sec. 17. Jurisdiction. 

Sec. 18. The Roosevelt Doctrine. 

Sec. 19. Quasi-Impeachment—The Vicinage. 

Sec. 20. Distinction between Invasion and Interven¬ 
tion. 

Sec. 21. The Quo Animo. 


CHAPTER IV 


ANCILLARY PROCESSES— 

Sec. 22. The Process by Arbitration. 

Sec. 23. The Process by Commission. 

Sec. 24. Distinction between Arbitration and Com¬ 
mission. 


CHAPTER V. 

THE CASE IN MANCHURIA— 

Sec. 25. Statement of the Case. 

Sec. 26. Japan’s Illegal Naval Assault. 

Sec. 27. Recapitulation of Japan’s Breaches of Inter¬ 
national Peace. 

Sec. 28. The Mistake of the Mikado. 

Sec. 29. The Mistake of the Czar. 

Sec. 30. In Pari Delicto. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD— 

Sec. 31. The Blood of the Soldier. 

Sec. 32. The Blood of Christ. 

Prayer. 


International Peace. 


CHAPTER I. 

INTERNATIONAL LAW 

Sec. i. Definition and Distinction. —In¬ 
ternational law is the law of the space between na¬ 
tions. It not only relates to the sea, but also 1 to all 
space on land where there is no recognized national 
sovereignty. It is not a law over nations ; for each 
sovereignty is supreme in its national jurisdiction; 
as to speak of a superior to supremacy, would in¬ 
volve a contradiction in terms. 

International sovereignty, therefore, in no 
manner infringes upon nationality. Every recog¬ 
nized sovereign in his own territorial limits is inde¬ 
pendent of the dictation of any foreign potentate 
whatever. In the study of this subject, the indepen¬ 
dence of national sovereignty should always be kept 
in view and all else be made to harmonize with this 
truth. 

Sec. 2. No Vacuum in Sovereignty .—Inter¬ 
national law springs out of the thought that a sover¬ 
eignty of some kind exists everywhere. It is as 
universal as the air we breathe. That is to say, there 
is no space or spot on this planet, where the right to 
declare and enforce law does not exist in somebody. 



10 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


The jurisdiction over the sea is that of joint- 
sovereignty—each national sovereign being ex- 
officio, one of the joint-sovereigns of the sea; while 
on the other hand, within his territorial limits, his 
sovereignty is in severalty. 

International sovereignty over the sea is per¬ 
manent. But on land it is only temporary; for it 
becomes dormant whenever national organization is 
developed in the given international space. But in 
either event a sovereignty of some kind, either na¬ 
tional or international, exists wherever man is 
found. 

Sec. 3. The Origin and Nature of Internar 
tional Lazo .—There are no international statutes ; 
nor written constitutions. International law was 
born and not made. It came in to the world like the 
common law that inheres in nationality. The com¬ 
mon law of a nation is simply the unfolding of the 
golden rule, within its territorial limits. The inter¬ 
national common law is simply the application of the 
same rule to international space. 

Practically speaking, the common law, whether 
national or international, is simply the conscience of 
the judiciary as applied to- the facts of the given 
case. The judicial conscience enlightens itself by 
reason and precedent. Where there is no precedent 
it makes one. Where there is precedent, it gener¬ 
ally follows it. 

A precedent ancient or often repeated is allowed 
to enlighten the conscience, sometimes, when as an 
original proposition a different view might be adopt¬ 
ed. And this is upon the principle of stare decisis; 





INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


11 


which is based upon the idea that settled rules best 
conserve the rights of men. It sometimes happens, 
however, that an ancient precedent works so great 
injustice that the court ignores or overrules it, and 
carves out a new path for itself. 

In every common law problem whether national 
or international the sole inquiry of the judge in the 
case is: What is the truth? And the decree is sim¬ 
ply the reflection of the degree of enlightenment of 
the judicial conscience as to the truth of the case. 
Sometimes it is a question of fact. At other times 
the dispute is as to what is the law applicable to the 
conceded or established facts. But in all cases, 
when the judgment is pronounced it is simply the 
expression of the conscience of the judge. So* that 
international law may be said to be the sense of 
right of the international judiciary as applied to the 
facts of the given case. 

The common law then, whether national or in¬ 
ternational, is not judge-made. It is merely judge- 
evolved. This evolution is a process that will 
never end as long as changes occur in the affairs of 
men. Circumstances alter cases. The facts of the 
case are the bed. The common law molds and 
adapts itself, like molten lead, to the facts, and new 
phases of the law will appear as long as new facts 
appear. 

All the law and the prophets hang upon the 
law of love to God and man; and this law was not 
made. It was evolved by the Son of God from the 
everlasting divinity within Him—the heart of the 
Supreme Ruler, that ordained the powers that be. 




12 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


Sec. 4. The Monroe Doctrine .—An import¬ 
ant step in the evolution of international jurisprud¬ 
ence occurred, when President Monroe announced 
the doctrine bearing his name. There were at that 
time in South America large areas, where there was 
no local government; and also other spaces where 
the national governments were so weak as to be 
merely nominal; or so venal and violent as to be 
worse than nominal. In all such regions interna¬ 
tional jurisdiction attached upon the principle that 
there is no vacuum in sovereignty; and accordingly 
in certain portions of these international spaces, the 
monarchs of the old world proceeded from time to 
time to organize local governments; and this was 
done without consulting the United States in such 
cases, our assent being assumed or implied from ac¬ 
quiescence. 

President Monroe, however, finally took the 
position, that, without in any manner invalidating 
what had been done, no such absorption of territory 
there should occur in the future without the express 
assent of the President of the United States, as one 
of the International Judges in the vicinage; and that 
at least as a general rule, thereafter the United 
States was to be understood as dissenting from such 
absorption whether by the so-called right of dis¬ 
covery or by conquest. It should, however, be dis¬ 
tinguished that the United States never claimed any 
protectorate or right of supervision over any recog¬ 
nized nationality in South America, nor of any Eu¬ 
ropean colony developed there. The American right 
of intervention exists only where international juris- 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


13 


diction exists. It should be further distinguished that 
the Monroe Doctrine does not affirm the exclusive 
right of the United States to intervene in the inter¬ 
national affairs in South America. All other na¬ 
tions have the same right to a voice in such inter¬ 
national matters. The difference is that many of 
them have little or no interest in the questions pre¬ 
sented there and they consent by acquiescence to 
what is done. While on the other hand, the policy 
of the United States is that its interests are so great 
by reason of vicinage that it proposes to exercise 
an active voice in the determination of all interna¬ 
tional matters in that continent. 

This does not mean that the American Gov¬ 
ernment proposes to intervene in all controversies*** 
between European and South American Sovereign¬ 
ties, but only in such matters as relate to interna¬ 
tional space. 

The writer does not understand that, if the 
majority of the nations of this world should unite 
upon a measure, affecting only some given interna¬ 
tional space, in South America, the United States 
would nullify such an international decree. Our 
remedy would rather be to wait for conversion to 
our views, feeling confident that in time the truth 
will prevail. In the proper connection these sub¬ 
jects are more fully discussed and the reader is re¬ 
ferred to what is there said. Suffice it for the 
present purpose to say that the Monroe Doctrine is 
not a cloak for inefficiency, insolvency or iniquity. 
The international remedies in such cases are ample 
as we shall presently see. 





14 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


Sec. 5 . International Courtesy .—An import¬ 
ant international principle is the quality of courtesy. 
As already suggested and hereafter more fully seen, 
all nations have the right to a voice in the settle¬ 
ment of all international matters. The courteous 
recognition of this truth, in each and every case, 
would, at least as a general rule prevent war be¬ 
tween nations and in all cases, be a powerful ally 
of peace. Secretary Hay, in two recent instances, 
demonstrated the power of this quality, in 
the success of his two courteous notes to' the Powers 
in relation to China. The consensus of interna¬ 
tional opinion thus courteously ascertained carries 
with it such weight as to command the respect of 
both belligerents in Manchuria. It is possible that 
if we had exhibited this same courtesy in regard to 
Cuba, the Spanish-American war might have been 
averted. As elsewhere suggested Spain could have 
bowed in submission to an international decree, par¬ 
ticipated in by all nations, without infringement 
upon her national honor, and doubtless would have 
done so. On the contrary, however, we arrogated 
to ourselves the task of settling that international 
matter, resulting in great cost of blood and treasure 
and unexpected responsibilities. If we undertake 
to excuse this arrogation as to Cuba, on the prin¬ 
ciple of vicinage, it will not avail as a plea, as to the 
Philippines. We started out to pacify Cuba. The 
Philippines, however, at that time, did not need 
pacification. The Archipelago was quiet. There 
was no rebellion there. The civil authority was 
supreme. President McKinley, in the first instance, 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


15 


gave no order to invade Manila. The order of Sec¬ 
retary Long to Admiral Dewey was merely to find 
and destroy the Spanish squadron. This order was 
executed, and then without any authority from 
Washington, Admiral Dewey declared a blockade of 
Manila. The destruction of the Spanish squadron 
destroyed the naval prop of the civil authority at 
Manila and reduced it to a mere nominal condition; 
and the underlying dormant international jurisdic¬ 
tion at once sprang into life throughout the Archi¬ 
pelago. Admiral Dewey overlooked this interna¬ 
tional phase of the situation and arrogated to the 
United States the sole control there and established 
the blockade accordingly. 

Sec. 6 . A Case in Point .—Now let us note 
the peril of international complication through fail¬ 
ure to exercise the quality of international courtesy. 
Soon after the blockade at Manila was declared by 
Admiral Dewey a number of other war ships of 
other nations came there, including five from Ger¬ 
many, two of which were armored vessels. The 
German commander took a more active interest in 
the situation than the other Powers which is de¬ 
scribed in Lodge’s History of the War with Spain, 
pages 195-197 as follows: “There was one power 
present who pushed her hostility from thoughts and 
words to action. This power was Germany. She 
had no especial claim to be there, no large or par¬ 
ticular interests, but she sent more ships than any 
other power, kept on meddling and went to the verge 
of war. The Germans broke through Dewey’s 
regulations, which he had the right to make and he 






16 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


called them sharply to order. They would violate 
the rules by moving about at night and then the 
American search lights fell with a glare upon them 
and followed them about in a manner which checked 
and annoyed them. One German ship put out her 
lights and tried to slip in at night, but a shell across 
her bows brought her to. Another made herself 
offensive by following and running close up to our 
transports when they first arrived. A German ship 
went up to Subig Bay and prevented the insurgents 
from taking the Isla Grande. So the Raleigh and 
Concord went up too, stripped for action and as 
they went in, the Irene went out and the Americans 
took Isla Grande. Very trying all this to a man 
charged with great responsibilities and seven thous¬ 
and miles from home. There must be no haste, no 
rashness, nothing that could give his opponents a 
hold and yet there must be no yielding and no threat 
except with action behind it and a provocation which 
the whole world would justify. Every annoyance, 
every improper movement was quickly checked. 
The diplomacy was perfect. Then came the suffi¬ 
cient provocation and the teeth were shown. To 
the vigilant admiral the opportunity came at last 
when one of the German vessels was proved to have 
landed provisions in Manila.” 

Admiral Dewey at once gave his flag-lieutenant 
the following verbal order: “Take the barge and 
go over to the German flagship. Give Admiral Von 
Diederick my compliments and say that I wish to 
call attention to the fact that vessels of his squadron 
have shown an extraordinary disregard of the usual 





INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


17 


courtesies of naval intercourse and that finally one 
of them has committed a gross breach of neutrality 
in landing provisions in Manila, a port which I am 
blockading. Tell Admiral Von Diederick that if 
he wants a fight he can have it right now.” There¬ 
upon the German admiral became sorry for what 
had happened and it appeared did not know what 
his captains had been doing—a sad reflection upon 
German discipline. But it seemed that though he 
had two armored ships and Dewey none he did not 
desire a fight and the meddling abated sensibly.” 

Now according to this record Admiral Dewey 
appealed to the law of international courtesy and by 
this same law he should be’judged. We should re¬ 
member at that time international jurisdiction at¬ 
tached to or existed in the Philippines for two 
reasons, (i) When the Spanish navy was de¬ 
stroyed in the Manila Bay the prop of the civil 
authority in those islands was taken away, as sug¬ 
gested in the last section, and the local government 
was reduced to a mere nominal state—a condition 
which, as we shall hereafter see, justified interna¬ 
tional intervention, under what is known as inter¬ 
national police-power. 

(2) The heir of the Spanish Kingdom was 
an infant and his heritage was a proper matter for 
international tutelage. It was accordingly the duty 
of the international police-power to conserve his 
estate. Instead of declaring and waging war upon 
him, we should have held that the Spanish regency 
the mere vicar of the infant King, had no right to 
declare war and thus jeopardize and waste the estate 




18 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


of this international ward and the so-called Spanish 
declaration of war should have been treated as a 
nullity and the authority of the regency in all the 
Spanish dominions subject to be superseded by in¬ 
ternational intervention. Upon both of these 
grounds international jurisdiction existed in the 
Philippines and accordingly the navies of England, 
France, Germany and Japan, as well as our own 
navy, were all rightfully there and all equally en¬ 
titled to a voice in the management of the govern¬ 
mental affairs of Manila. Admiral Dewey, how¬ 
ever, assumed the exclusive governmental preroga¬ 
tive there and without any authority from Wash¬ 
ington declared a blockade of Manila and proposed 
to fight the German navy, because it simply exer¬ 
cised the plainest international right, viz: to' succor 
the needy in international jurisdiction by delivering 
provisions to them. If by authority from Wash¬ 
ington Admiral Dewey had issued a proclamation 
annexing the Philippines to the United States and 
our jurisdiction there had become recognized by a 
majority of the nations of the world, then we would 
have had the national right to exclude Germany 
from a voice in the case. Until then we could 
have no national jurisdiction at Manila and could 
only act under international jurisdiction; in which 
case, the treatment of Germany, one of the interna¬ 
tional intervenors in the case, constituted inter¬ 
national discourtesy; for all the intervening pow¬ 
ers had as much right there in the exercise of the 
international police-power as the United States. 
The marvelous forbearance of Germany under the 





INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


19 


circumstances is highly to be commended. Unless 
our discourtesy is barred by lapse of time, we owe 
Germany an apology and should salute the German 
flag; and this should be done to emphasize and vin¬ 
dicate the underlying principle of international 
equality involved in the case, a subject hereafter 
more fully discussed. 

Sec. 7. An Example of True International 
Courtesy .—By reason of the Boxer insurrection 
the frail dynasty of China was overthrown and all 
foreigners there were in great peril. International 
jurisdiction attached to China as soon as local gov¬ 
ernment disappeared or become inefficient. We 
however did not arrogate to ourselves the exclusive 
prerogative of intervention for purpose of Chinese 
pacification. But in marked contrast with our 
course in Cuba and the Philippines, the United 
States, united with the leading Powers of the world. 
England, Germany, France, Russia and Japan in 
the intervention and by military force quelled the 
insurrection and restored the government. This 
action on the part of President McKinley was sim¬ 
ply an advanced step in international evolution— 
the mere blossom or logical sequence of the Mon¬ 
roe doctrine. The legal right to' intervene in China 
existed the same as in South America, and he con¬ 
ceived that commercial as well as humane grounds 
would justify intervention on his part; but he real¬ 
ized that the other Powers of this world had the 
same legal right there as himself and courteously 
united with them in the intervention. He did not 
follow the precedent set at Manila and blockade the 





20 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


ports of China and propose to fight the other Pow¬ 
ers for landing provisions for some of their suffer¬ 
ing countrymen or friends. Darkness, bitterness 
and the closed door reigned at Manila. Light, 
concord and the “open door/’ set in in China and 
has prevailed there until the present day, being re¬ 
cently augmented as already suggested by the 
marked success of the two> courteous notes of Sec¬ 
retary Hay to the Powers—the consensus of inter¬ 
national opinion thereby elicited being amply suffi¬ 
cient to reserve the Chinese territory from the 
theatre of the Russo-Japanese war. 

Sec. 8. International Policc-Pozver. —Na¬ 
tional Police is the right and duty of internal regu¬ 
lation of a nation, including the promotion of its 
welfare and peace and prosperity. Police inheres 
in sovereignty and really denotes the right of sov¬ 
ereignty to self-preservation. It was under this 
power that President Lincoln proceeded to coerce 
peace in the South, without waiting for congress 
to take action in the matter. 

A trace of this power had previously exhibited 
itself when President Washington sent troops into 
Western Pennsylvania to quell the “Whiskey Re¬ 
bellion.” Under this power, President Cleveland, 
ordered his soldiers to disperse the mob growing 
out of the strike in Chicago'—the preservation of 
peace in his jurisdiction being of the very essence 
of his sovereignty. International police is the cor¬ 
relative of national police and denotes the right and 
duty to conserve the peace in all international space, 
including the sea. The right to exercise this power 





INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


21 


does not depend upon statutes or treaties. It in¬ 
heres in international sovereignty; which comes 
into the world as the logical concomitant of na¬ 
tional sovereignties and correlated thereto not by 
dominion over them but by sustenance from them, 
involving the same general purpose of peace and 
good will to men. 

Sec. 9. International Jurisdiction .—No sov¬ 
ereign can exercise police-power except within his 
jurisdiction, i. e., he and the subject matter of his 
orders must be in his own national limits or within 
his international limits, which comprise all inter¬ 
national space, including the sea. When a sov¬ 
ereign goes out beyond his jurisdiction, both na¬ 
tional and international, to exercise sovereign func¬ 
tions his orders are void and he is a disturber of 
the peace of that realm, whose territorial limits are 
thus invaded. (See on this point Bishop’s Crim¬ 
inal Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 122.) (See also Sec. 20 of 
this Monograph.) 

Sec. 10. The Law of Peace .—The sea is the 
world’s highway. It’s waves wash the shores of 
all nations, making communication between any 
two possible without the intervention of a third 
nationality. The sea is essential to national life— 
independence of intercourse being of the essence of 
nationality in the full sense of that term. There 
are bodies politic like Switzerland without inde¬ 
pendent access to the sea—being in the material 
respect of intercourse virtual dependencies and 
hence are only quasi-national. The sea then is the 
world’s highway and the law of the highway is the 




22 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


law of peace—every man being entitled to the 
the peaceful use and enjoyment thereof. And 
hence the essence of all international law is com¬ 
prised in the one thought—the peace of the sea— 
the world’s highway. Whoever violates this 
peace may be dealt with by international processes 
which in the following chapters will be briefly con¬ 
sidered. 




CHAPTER II. 

THE INTERNATIONAL JUDICIARY . 

Sec. ii. Existence Implied. — We have seen 
in the preceding chapter that international law ex¬ 
ists. Now it is manifest that the existence of law 
implies that there is a judge of that law; for unless 
there is some one having authority to declare the 
law, we cannot predicate the existence of the law. 
That is to say, as already explained, law is simply 
the exercise of the judicial conscience as applied to 
the facts of a given case—this conscience being 
more or less enlightened by reason and precedent. 
The existence then of international law implies the 
existence of an international judiciary—a word de¬ 
rived from the Latin judico—I speak the law. 

Sec. 12. Membership and Franchise. —Who¬ 
ever is charged with the conservation of the peace 
of the sea is ex-officio a judge of the law of the sea, 
the essence of all international law. In practice 
we find that the Chief Executives of the nations of 
this world are commanders-in-chief of their respec¬ 
tive navies and hence each of them is ex-officio a 
member of the international judiciary. They are 
ex-necessitate joint sovereigns of all international 
space, including the sea, and consequently consti¬ 
tute the International Court. In the absence of any 
rule or convention to the contrary any one of them 


24 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


constitutes a quorum, and the Court is always in 
session, having as yet no stated terms. 

Any sovereign of full age and sound mind is en¬ 
titled to a voice in international adjudication, and 
the vote of the sovereign of the smallest nation has 
as much legal force as the vote of the sovereign of 
the largest nation; for they are both equally en¬ 
titled to the use and enjoyment of the sea—the 
basis of all international jurisprudence. The rich 
owner of an expensive automobile has no greater 
right to the highway than his poorest neighbor 
with the humblest vehicle—each must give half the 
road and are equally required to observe its peace. 
And so in the divinely ordained highway between 
nations, all the Powers, large or small, are equal; 
as much so as the members of the United States 
Senate or British House of Lords, notwithstanding 
differences in size of constituencies or wealth of 
members. The International Peerage is inherent, 
and cannot be denied; for whenever a nation loses 
the right to the use and enjoyment of the sea its na¬ 
tionality perishes also—this right being of the 
essence of nationality, for without it free and un¬ 
restrained diplomatic intercourse cannot be had. 
Such a nation is like a farm without any highway. 

Sec. 13. Majority Rule .—It would seem 
that the opinion of the majority of the interna¬ 
tional judges must finally prevail in international 
adjudication. If the minority ignores the ascer¬ 
tained views of the majority it virtually impeaches 
or expels from the international judiciary the ma¬ 
jority or at least a sufficient number to convert the 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


25 


minority into the majority. The contest then 
would turn on the question as to who constitutes 
the court. Pending its settlement there would vir¬ 
tually be no international court and conseqeuntly 
no international law; for as already seen where 
there is no court there is no* law. 

The only possible escape from such a dilemma 
is the recognized rule of the majority. Whoever 
ignores, opposes or rebels against it advocates in¬ 
ternational chaos. 

It is neither wise nor necessary to' antagonize 
by force of arms the faith of the majority of the 
recognized sovereigns, fairly formed and freely ex¬ 
pressed; but rather wait for conversion to our 
views. In due time men will reach the truth. 

If, however, the American President is satis¬ 
fied that the view expressed by the majority is in¬ 
sincere, i. e., springs from chicane or duress; then 
the remedy as hereafter more fully discussed is to 
withdraw recognition of any and all such monarchs 
thus found worthy of impeachment; and the views 
of the remaining judges would constitute the 
opinion of the international court. 

This remedy by impeachment should however 
be the last resort. Time and patience will gener¬ 
ally obviate it. If we meet with defeat in the In¬ 
ternational Forum today we may win, if we are in 
the right, by changes later on in the personnel of 
the court arising from death, resignation, and other 
causes. Such things have happened ever since the 
vicissitudes of Joseph through change of Pharaohs. 

One of the most remarkable instances of this 




26 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


in national jurisprudence in modern times was the 
validation of the Legal Tender Act, during the ad¬ 
ministration of President Grant by the addition of 
two new members to the Federal Supreme Court 
thus converting the minority into the majority. So 
that we should always remember that time and 
patience in the exercise of abundant charity are 
hand-maids of international peace. The world’s 
decision may be wrong today; but it will fight 
itself tomorrow by conversion or change of per¬ 
sonnel. 

Sec. 14. International Tutelage .—All law of 
which we have any knowledge has involved in it 
the modifying force of tutelage; and we shall see 
that international law presents no exception to the 
rule. 

It would indeed be very strange if we could 
not trace the quality of tutelage, in international 
jurisprudence. Upon principle it would seem that 
a monarch who is an infant or a dotard, or insane 
would not be entitled to a voice in any international 
adjudication. His right in this respect seems to be 
in abeyance. 

The reason for this view is that the sovereign 
in tutelage is only nominal, and international juris¬ 
diction attaches to the territory involved; under 
which regency springs up by sufferance of the In¬ 
ternational Police-Power; although there is in some 
cases quiet intervention and supervision, by some 
one or more of the Sovereign-Judges, especially 
from the vicinage. 

The regent is only the vicar of the king and 





INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


27 


is at all times subject to international intervention 
and supervision. 

The International Court, however, is a court 
of Sovereigns, and not a court of vicars, secretaries 
or prime ministers; and being the highest tribunal 
in the world is ex-necessitate, judge of the qualifi¬ 
cation of its own members; and tutelage being in¬ 
consistent with the independence of the Internation¬ 
al Judiciary, logically requires the court to exclude 
the nation affected by it from any voice, vote or 
participation in any matter addressing itself to the 
International Judicial Conscience. 

The exclusion, however, does not relate to purely 
ministerial matters. It only relates to judicial mat¬ 
ters, where questions of international fact, law or 
adimnistration are to be determined. 

If the President of the United States should 
become insane, all ministerial matters would pro¬ 
ceed uninterruptedly through the various depart¬ 
ments ; but until he should be removed by impeach¬ 
ment and his successor inducted, we would be 
without representation in the International Court— 
and accordingly subject to international jurisdic¬ 
tion, intervention and supervision. To illustrate: 

Suppose our President should become insane 
during the Congressional vacation and the Secre¬ 
tary of war should assume the prerogative to order 
our army to invade the British Domain; the King 
of England would have the undoubted international 
right to intervene in the United States, and appoint 
a ruler for us who would countermand the usurper’s 
order until Congress should assemble and take ac- 




28 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


tion in the matter. This seems to be the logical 
deduction from the intervention of President Mc¬ 
Kinley in Cuba, and his establishment of a tempo¬ 
rary government pending the development of a 
permanent government in that island. 

The importance of this method by intervention 
in the exercise of international police-power will be 
considered later on, in the section on the distinction 
between intervention and invasion. 

The subject is merely referred to here to point 
out and explain that international jurisdiction, 
springs up into life and activity in all cases when 
the governmental condition of a nation is ripe for 
tutelage. 

Sec. 15. The Rudimentary Nature of the 
International Court .—The International Court is 
exceedingly rudimentary as at present developed; 
and so informal as to make it difficult to> trace 
the judicial quality inhering in the disposition of a 
given case. So much so>, in fact, as to cause many 
of the advocates of peace to doubt its existence, al¬ 
together, and to plan for the creation of an Inter- 
nationl Court by a practically universal treaty. 

The belief of the writer, however, is that the 
court already exists and is in operation; and all that 
is needed in the matter is the formulation of its 
rules of procedure by convention of the Interna¬ 
tional Judges. 

As already seen the consensus of opinion of a 
majority of the International Judges, taking part 
in a case, must finally prevail in its settlement, judi¬ 
cially. But at present the method of ascertaining 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


29 


this consensus of opinion is exceedingly crude and 
informal. 

The situation is analogous to that of a number 
of joint owners of a large farm, where the business 
is done informally, without organization or assem¬ 
blage. But by various means of communication 
they compare views and agree upon the operation 
of the farm—those near the scene of action taking 
a more active part, while those more distant or 
otherwise engaged consent by acquiescence, where 
more formal or express assent is not given. 

In a manner similar to this, international mat¬ 
ters of a judicial nature are frequently disposed of. 

A case in point is presented in the recent his¬ 
tory of Cuba, already referred to. When Presi¬ 
dent McKinley declared that anarchy existed in 
that island and international jurisdiction had ac¬ 
cordingly attached to that territory, he did not wait 
for express ratification or assent of sister nations; 
but he assumed his judicial finding in the matter 
to be confirmed by acquiescence of the entire world 
and upon the same principle took upon hmself the 
exclusive task of pacification and promotion of the 
new government. 

While perhaps upon the principle of vicinage, 
we had a deeper interest in the matter than any 
other nation, at least sufficient to justify our initia¬ 
tion of the inquiry into the case, yet it would have 
been far better to have taken the express judgment 
of the entire international judiciary as to the juris¬ 
dictional fact as to the existence of anarchy, and if 
in the affirmative then to have procured the express 





30 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


assent of the International Police-Power to the 
course we proposed to pursue; and to that end it 
would have been an exceedingly wise move to have 
called a conference of all nations to consider and 
determine the questions involved. 

Spain could have bowed gracefully to the find¬ 
ing of such a conference upon the question of an¬ 
archy and war would have been averted; and there 
would have been the additional advantage, so> fre¬ 
quently urged in this monograph, viz: Such' a 
courteous recognition by the United States of the 
right of all the International Judges to a voice in 
the settlement of the matter would have done much 
to advance the International Forum out of its 
mere rudimentary condition. 

The Case of China, however, served this excel¬ 
lent purpose and brought this great court more 
clearly to light. 

The six leading Powers, England, Germany, 
France, Russia, Japan and the United States inter¬ 
vened there and suppressed the Boxer insurrection 
and brought order out of chaos. The intervention 
was not well organized and was more or less infor¬ 
mal, but as already suggested it was effectual. 

Without multiplying these illustrations, suffice 
it for the present purpose to say the International 
Court, as at present developed is simply a diamond 
in the rough. But this great and precious pearl 
of the world’s peace exists. As the years come and 
go, it will be polished and brought to light and effi¬ 
ciency along the line of reason and precedent and 
we may hope will culminate with effulgence 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


31 


through formal assemblage and promulgation of 
rules of procedure. 

Sec. i 6. The Temple of Peace .—If a dis¬ 
trict, say, six miles square, on our Atlantic coast 
should be dedicated to international jurisdiction and 
a Temple of Peace erected there surrounded with 
palaces for the sovereigns of all nations, respec¬ 
tively, it would facilitate international action, in 
that each ruler could attend an Annual Interna¬ 
tional Conference there without departing from his 
own jurisdiction—an important consideration; for 
the reason that no sovereign can act officially when 
he is beyond his jurisdiction; and hence it is not 
desirable for the ruler of a nation to depart from 
his jurisdiction. For this reason no< President of 
the United States has ever visited another nation. 
Some of them have gone possibly a little way out 
into our international jurisdiction of the sea; but 
no further. 

Under this plan, however, our President could 
confer with every sovereign, without any of them 
acting or going outside of their lawful spheres of 
action. 

The writer does not claim that an Annual In¬ 
ternational Conference of Sovereigns is absolutely 
essential to the world’s peace; but it would un¬ 
doubtedly be a most valuable expedient to> that end 
—a vast improvement over the present crude and 
informal method of ascertaining the consensus of 
sovereign opinion as to international matters. 

The temple proposed to be built by Mr. Car¬ 
negie at Hague would not meet the requirements 




32 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


of the case; for, there is no district there washed 
by the sea, that could be dedicated to international 
jurisdiction; nor is any such dedication proposed. 

When the Panama Canal is completed our At¬ 
lantic coast would furnish the most convenient dis¬ 
trict; and it is not too much to expect that sooner 
or later America will be glorified by such a Temple 
of Peace, devoted to a general assembly of all the 
sovereigns of the world—the real and only judges 
of the sea. 

How this will be brought about does not yet 
appear. Some of our multi-millionaires may de¬ 
vote their fortunes for such purpose, either by will 
or in some manner before death. 

What a gift to mankind and the cause of 
peace, if some philanthropist would devote one hun¬ 
dred million dollars to the erection of such a tem¬ 
ple, surrounded with palaces suitable for the visit¬ 
ing sovereigns! 

If not done in some such way as this, it will 
probably be accomplished in the process of time, by 
the combined effort of all nationalities—each con¬ 
tributing pro rota tO' the completion of the enter¬ 
prise. 




CHAPTER III. 


INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION. 

Sec. 17. Jurisdiction .—We have already 
seen that the sea is under international jurisdiction. 
No one national sovereignty has exclusive jurisdic¬ 
tion over the sea. All nations have equal right to 
the use and enjoyment of the sea. 

Thus far there is no difficulty in relation to 
the subject. But as to terra firma, the matter is 
not so clear. 

In general, however, it may be said that inter¬ 
national jurisdiction exists, wherever there is no 
officient local government, including all regions 
where local anarchy presents itself. 

In some cases anarchy is self-evident—no gov¬ 
ernment ever having been organized in the given 
space, or having entirely disappeared. 

In other cases it is more or less disguised from 
view. The test in this latter class of cases, where 
there is appearance of local governmental organiz¬ 
ation is : (1) Insolvency; and (2) Chronic In¬ 

justice. 

The symptoms of this last condition are mob 
rule, chronic violence and fraud. 

In this latter class of cases the first question 
for the International Judiciary to determine is the 
jurisdictional fact as to the existence of anarchy. 
If it is found that anarchy does not exist, that ends 


34 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


the international case. The remedy for wrongs, 
where an efficient local government exists is to ap¬ 
ply to the local nationality and not to invoke inter¬ 
national jurisdiction. 

In determining the question of the existence 
of anarchy, two classes of symptoms should be dis¬ 
tinguished, viz: (i) Anarchy de facto, character¬ 
ized by insolvency and mob rule, conclusive evi¬ 
dence of impotence and mere nominal sovereignty; 
(2) Anarchy de jure, where the ruler himself is 
addicted to fraud, violence and general chronic 
wrong-doing. The legal maxim is that the king 
can do no> wrong. Hence when these things pre¬ 
sent themselves, the law infers that there is no king 
and de jure anarchy is predicable of the situation. 

There is still an other condition where as al¬ 
ready suggested, international jurisdiction exists, 
viz: the quasi-anarchy, requiring tutelage, where 
the ruler is an infant, or insane or dotard. In all 
such cases it must be confessed that there is no 
fearless independent monarch. 

If along any of these lines, the International 
Judiciary finds that international jurisdiction has 
attached to any given space, then, the sole problem 
presented is as to the nature and form of the gov¬ 
ernment to be organized and fostered, by or under 
the patronage and assistance of the International 
Police-power inhering in the International Forum. 

As soon as the new sovereignty in severalty is 
set in motion, the international jurisdiction ceases. 
All questions thereafter must be worked out 
through the local sovereignty. 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


25 


The republics of Cuba and Panama are as 
sacred from any outside touch as the United States 
or England. 

Sec. i 8 . The Roosevelt Doctrine. —A great 
service was done this world when President Mon¬ 
roe promulgated the doctrine bearing his name. A 
greater truth, however, was evolved in the last an¬ 
nual message of President Roosevelt, viz: That our 
rights under the Monroe Doctrine are based upon 
a world-wide international police-power. 

He is the first ruler to formally proclaim the 
existence of this power. Others have done so by 
implication. But by coining the invaluable phrase, 
“international police-power” this message brings 
out the truth that international law has substance 
and is not a mere shadow or dream of enthusiasts. 

He gives the subject express shape in the fol¬ 
lowing language: “If a nation shows that it knows 
how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency 
in social and political matters, if it keeps order and 
pays its obligations, it need fear no interference 
from the United States. Chronic wrong-doing or 
an impotence which results in a general loosening 
of the ties of civilized society may in America or 
elsewhere, ultimately require intervention, by some 
civilized nation and in the western hemisphere the 
adherence of the United States to' the Monroe Doc¬ 
trine may force the United States, however reluct¬ 
antly, in flagrant cases of such wrong-doing or 
impotence to the exercise of an international police- 
power.” 

This is a remarkable epitome of international 




36 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


law and remedy as related to governmental decad¬ 
ence and dead or dying dynasties, viz: (i) The 
jurisdictional condition of anarchy; the symptoms 
of which are dissolution of the body politic, impot¬ 
ence and chronic wrong-doing: (2) The remedy 
by intervention in the exercise of international 
police-power; and (3) recognition of the principle 
of vicinage involved in such cases. 

This message is an exceedingly valuable de¬ 
velopment in international jurisprudence and as we 
shall hereafter see, furnishes the world with a wea¬ 
pon, with which to banish war from this planet, if 
followed to its logical sequence. 

(See Sec 8 for some further definition of In¬ 
ternational Police-Power.) 

Sec. 19. •Quasi-Impeachment .—Where there 
is no nominal local government, international juris¬ 
diction attaches as a matter of course; for as al¬ 
ready ascertained there is no vacuum in sovereignty 
and international sovereignty is always implied 
where there is no national organization. 

But the more complex question arises where a 
nominal local government exists but is inefficient 
or corrupt. 

In such case, as already seen, the remedy is to 
find, declare or adjudge the existence of anarchy 
and intervene under the resulting international 
jurisdiction. 

This process of quasi-impeachment of a given 
sovereignty while drastic, yet is effective. One of 
the latest exhibitions of resort to this process, was 
the seizure of the customs of Venezuela by Great 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


37 


Britain and Germany. The Venezuelan government 
seemed to be insolvent or corrupt. At least it did 
not pay its debts. The rulers of England and Ger¬ 
many treated the situation as one of practical an¬ 
archy and intervened there and seized the customs— 
thus temporarily establishing a new government; 
for the exercise of the tax-power is of the essence 
of sovereignty in any land. They would probably 
have made the government permanent, if the re¬ 
mainder of the civilized world had consented by 
acquiescence. But the United- States in the exer¬ 
cise of her right to 1 a voice in matters of Interna¬ 
tional Police-Power, objected not to the finding of 
anarchy and resultant international jurisdiction, 
but to the form of the new government that was 
established in Venezuela. The matter was finally 
arranged to the satisfaction of the three interna¬ 
tional judges taking part in the matter, the King 
of England, the Emperor of Germany and the 
President of the United States by purifying, re¬ 
storing and strengthening the former government 
to such an extent as to' inspire the hope that it will 
meet its obligations. Whether this hope will be 
realized remains to be seen; as well as the future 
solution of the problems that may be there 
presented. 

The Vicinage .—In the message referred to in 
the last section President Roosevelt recognizes 
the importance of the question of vicinage, in¬ 
volved in these international cases. His thought 
seems to be that ordinarily the intervention should 
be initiated by an Intervenor in the vicinage. But 





38 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


he clearly recognizes the doctrine that this is not 
jurisdictional and the intervention may be instituted 
by any civilized nation. This justifies the recent 
joint intervention of the United States and other 
powers in China; and at the same time the right of 
a European nation to intervene in the western hem¬ 
isphere is not denied; but the Monroe Doctrine sim¬ 
ply serves notice that in all such cases the United 
States proposes to take part in the intervention and 
determination of the questions involved, on account 
of connection with the situation by vicinage. This 
doctrine finds analogy in the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Supreme Court in Habeas Corpus. Any of 
the justices or the Court itself may send the writ 
into any state in the Union; but in practice the ap¬ 
plicant is referred to the justice assigned to his cir¬ 
cuit—the reason being that convenience requires the 
question of vicinage to be considered, unless some 
good reason appears why this principle should be 
ignored in the given case. 

And so where International Intervention is 
warranted, any nation in the exercise of a sound 
discretion, may disregard the question of vicinage 
and institute the intervention. But in all important 
cases it is certainly the part of wisdom to observe 
the principle of courtesy, by inviting all the Interna¬ 
tional Judges to a conference as to the matter, to 
the end that those that consider themselves inter¬ 
ested in the case may take a hand in the settlement 
of the issues involved. 

Sec. 20. Distinction Between Invasion and 
Intervention .—The inviolability of sovereignty is 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


39 


an axiomatic truth. That is to say, two sovereign¬ 
ties in severalty cannot occupy the same 
space at the same time, no more than matter 
can lose its impenetrability. It follows that a 
war of invasion involves a plain solecism. 
For one of the contending rulers in the in¬ 
vaded territory exceeds his jurisdiction. If the 
President of the United States should send his army 
into the British realm, it would pass out beyond his 
jurisdiction the moment it should cross the bound¬ 
ary line; and his orders in the foreign jurisdiction 
would be of no validity; for the reason that no' offi¬ 
cer has any authority outside of his jurisdiction. 
Both he and the subject matters of his orders must 
be within his national or international jurisdiction 
to give them legal efficacy. 

It follows, therefore, that before our army 
could ever lawfully enter upon territory now occu¬ 
pied by a foreign power, we should first impeach 
the sovereignty of the alleged given ruler, either 
over the territory in dispute or his right to reign 
at all, and thus avoid the clash of sovereignties and 
the confusion incident to the involved illogical at¬ 
tempt to violate inviolability and penetrate impene¬ 
trability. 

Invasion does not contemplate such impeach¬ 
ment and removal of the monarch reigning in the 
invaded territory. It simply involves the idea of 
killing and wounding an indefinite number of his 
subjects and more or less destruction of public and 
private property in order to cripple the resources of 
the invaded nationality. The animus is not to over- 








40 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


throw the national sovereignty; for that would de¬ 
velop international jurisdiction—a contingency that 
belligerents often specifically seek to avoid, lest 
other nations should intervene, under the interna¬ 
tional police-power and end the war by a settlement 
not satisfactory to either of the original belligerents. 
Hence neither of them seeks the dethronement of 
the other. The idea is merely to kill and lay waste 
until one or the other sues for peace. 

This consideration will enable us to see the fal¬ 
lacy of invasion. In all such cases the forces of the 
invader are beyond the jurisdiction of the invading 
sovereign, and he is a murderer and liable to indict¬ 
ment as such in the invaded nation. Intervention, 
on the contrary, has no' thought of vengeance. Its 
only animus is that of peace and salvation; and to 
that end the inefficient government is impeached, 
and removed, by armed intervention, if need be, and 
a new government is organized or the old regener¬ 
ated and re-established. 

It should, however, be remembered that inter¬ 
vention has no legal basis until it is decided by the 
International Court (of which, as ascertained in 
Section n, any Sovereign-Judge constitutes a quo¬ 
rum) that international jurisdiction has attached to 
the given territory, by reason of the existence of 
local anarchy, practically, at least, or substantially 
speaking. When this is found, then the intervening 
Sovereign-Judge does not exceed his jurisdiction in 
sending an armed force into the territory thus af¬ 
fected by anarchy; for while his army, it is true, 
passes out beyond his national limits, it is still with- 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


41 


in his international jurisdiction and consequently 
subject to his orders, and the quality of invasion is 
not predicable of his procedure. In the light of this 
explanation we can truthfully claim that 'President 
McKinley did not invade Cuba. His procedure 
there was simply an armed intervention in the ex¬ 
ercise of international police-power. 

If he had recognized Spanish dominion in 
Cuba and sent his army down there, not to super¬ 
sede, but to cripple and humble the government, and 
thereby avenge the Maine, then he would have been 
an invader. But that was not his animus. On the 
contrary, he declared that an “insufferable” condi¬ 
tion of things existed in the island. This declara¬ 
tion of virtual anarchy in Cuba was an impeach¬ 
ment of the Spanish dominion there, before the 
world, and the world acquiesced in it; and under his 
resultant international jurisdiction he intervened 
for purposes of pacification and establishment of a 
new and efficient government. The entire proceed¬ 
ing was praiseworthy, except as already explained 
in Sec. 5, a courteous note to the Powers, inviting a 
joint intervention of all nations willing to sit in the 
case, would have avoided war; for Spain could 
have bowed gracefully to* a general international 
consensus formally expressed, that her dominion in 
Cuba had degenerated into mere nominality and 
was practically effete; and it is morally certain that 
we could have secured such an expression; for the 
facts were patent. 

President McKinley also technically escapes 
the charge of invasion of the Philippines. When 





42 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


he destroyed the Spanish squadron, his navy was in 
his international jurisdiction of the sea. In the 
destruction of that squadron he crossed no boundary 
line of Spain. 

The destruction of the naval prop of the local 
government, left it without adequate resource and 
exposed the Philippines to international jurisdiction 
as explained in Sec. 5 of this monograph. The 
rightfulness of our assault upon the Spanish navy 
is not now up for consideration. It is sufficient to 
say that for reasons satisfactory to* him as one of 
the International Judges he ordered the destruction 
of the navy in Manila Bay, and as the consequence 
thereof, Manila passed into international jurisdic¬ 
tion and the subsequent advent of our army in the 
Philippines did not constitute invasion. It was sim¬ 
ply intervention to protect the lives and property of 
the people there and ordain a strong government. 
Subsequently by treaty with Spain and the acquies¬ 
cence of all other nations, the archipelago passed 
into the national jurisdiction of the United States. 
But in all this invasion is not predicable of the his¬ 
tory of that matter. 

In drawing this distinction the writer does not 
express any opinion as to the justifiableness of our 
assault upon the Spanish squadron in Manila Bay. 
The writer is not in possession of the facts that 
caused President McKinley to issue that order. 

In this connection it should be noted, however, 
our nation as-a rule, has never been swift to inter¬ 
vene in the affairs of other putative nations; for the 
reason that our policy has been as far as may be, to 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


43 


foster all existing governments and thus keep their 
respective territories out of international jurisdic¬ 
tion. We now have a task of that kind on our 
hands in San Domingo. Unless something is done 
financially for that insolvent republic, that island 
must sooner or later pass under international juris¬ 
diction. To prevent this and the resulting interna¬ 
tional intervention, it might be well for the United 
States to buy all the just bonds of that republic, and 
thus keep that little nation alive; for its one vote in 
the International Court might some time prove to 
be the casting vote of priceless value to' the world’s 
peace. 

The greater the number of Judges in the Inter¬ 
national Court the better. “In the multitude of 
counselors there is safety.” 

Let us foster and promote as many distinct na¬ 
tionalities as may be; to the end that the member¬ 
ship in the International Forum may increase rather 
than diminish—remembering that invasion is the 
snake-bite that may so cripple a nation that it may 
languish and die and thus rob the world of one of 
its International Judges; while on the other hand 
intervention is the antidote for all national poison, 
working life and health and peace where otherwise 
death and dishonor reign. 

Sec. 21. Quo Animo .—The test of a right¬ 
eous resort to military force is the quo animo. If 
the purpose is that of intervention in the exercise 
of police-power in the interest of justice and peace 
and good government, it is praiseworthy and en¬ 
titled to the prayers and sympathy of Christendom. 






44 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


If, on the other hand, the purpose is that of invas¬ 
ion, for purpose of conquest or reprisal, then the use 
of the sea in furtherance of such design is undoubt¬ 
edly a breach of the peace of the sea; and it would 
seem that the International Police-Power should in¬ 
terfere to prevent such breaches of international 
peace; and the offender should be required to desist 
or make amends, on pain and penalty of forfeiture 
of his throne. 

We thus see that if there is any meaning to the 
phrase coined in the last annual message of Presi¬ 
dent Roosevelt, “International Police-Power,” there 
is ample power to- banish war of invasion from the 
sea, and with the clipping of its naval wing this 
bird of prey will become extinct. In the ages to 
come the student of human cruelty will merely find 
its bones imbedded in some antiquated page of his¬ 
tory and wonder at the ignorance and depravity that 
gave birth and sustenance to such a monster. 





CHAPTER IV. 


ANCILLARY PROCESSES. 

Sec. 22. The Process by Arbitration. —Inter¬ 
national arbitration relates to matters occurring in 
the sea or on international space on land; and is 
not applicable to ordinary matters happening with¬ 
in the territorial limits of a nation. If a foreigner 
comes into the United States, he is entitled to the 
same protection of the law as our own citizens—no 
more, no less—and must take his chances along 
with them as to the adequacy of the protection. If 
he is injured by a mob or private assault the United 
States is not a party to the injury in such a sense as 
to justify international arbitration. It is only where 
international jurisdiction attaches that international 
arbitration is applicable. If violence should become 
chronic here, or if our government should maltreat 
a citizen of a foreign nation, the powers of this 
world might lawfully unite in tendering to us the 
alternative of intervention or repentance sufficient 
to avoid it; which should, of course, be evidenced by 
fruits meet for repentance. 

The amount necessary for reparation and res¬ 
toration to good standing among nations would be 
a proper matter for international arbitration. 

But as long as a nation exhibits no anarchical 
taint and is in good standing among nations, its 
ability and integrity unquestioned, all matters aris- 


46 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


ing internally among its inhabitants or visitors must 
be settled by national processes; for the reason as 
explained in Sec. i, there can be no superior to su¬ 
premacy and sovereignty denotes the supreme pow¬ 
er in a given territory. 

But all boundary disputes and all controversies 
relating to international space, including the sea, 
growing out of violence or otherwise, to which any 
nation may be a party, are proper matters for inter¬ 
national arbitration; for in all these cases interna¬ 
tional jurisdiction exists. 

In order to constitute arbitration in any proper 
sense there must be a court to which the award may 
be taken for review, confirmation and enforcement; 
otherwise the award is a mere brutcm fulmen; and 
the power to confirm implies the correlative power 
of rejection, on the ground of either accident, fraud, 
mistake or duress; as this instrumentality devised 
in the interest of righteousness and peace should not 
be a shelter for manifest injustice. 

All agreements, therefore, for international ar¬ 
bitration imply the existence of an International 
Court; otherwise such procedings are farcical. 

Resort to this valuable ancillary process 
has developed slowly, because of the idea that the 
award is final; but as above ascertained, this is an 
error; and when the subject is generally understood 
in its true light, the prejudice against arbitration 
will disappear. 

It should always be remembered that the arbi¬ 
trators are not the final judges in the case. The 
award has substantially the force of a verdict of a 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


47 


jury; and does not become final until confirmed by 
the International Court. 

Special arbitration providing for a finding of 
facts reserving the law to be settled by the Interna¬ 
tional Court (of which any soverign is a quorum) 
would be less liable to danger from fraud or per¬ 
version. This phase of forensic procedure, how¬ 
ever, seems to be practically involved in the Process 
by Commission, discussed in the next section. 

Neither is it the business of the arbitrators to 
compromise a case; but rather to decide the legal 
status of the parties at the date of the final submis¬ 
sion of the cause to them. Although there is no 
doubt that both arbitrators and jurors are often 
compelled to make concessions to each other’s views 
in order to reach an agreement—the courts uphold¬ 
ing such procedure upon the principle that it is wise 
for jurors to enlighten their consciences, by a com¬ 
parison of views. It should be further noted that 
the making of the agreement to arbitrate is a min¬ 
isterial act and is the exclusive prerogative of the 
treaty-making power in a nation. But the confir¬ 
mation or rejection of the award is a judicial act 
and is a function that devolves exclusively on the 
International Court. The President of the United 
States as a member of this court, in his action on 
the award, acts independently of the Senate and is 
answerable only to his own judicial conscience; and 
if no other Sovereign-Judge takes part in the case 
his decision is final; for as already seen, in Sec. n, 
one International Judge is sufficient to constitute a 
quorum of the International Court. If only two of 




48 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


the International Judges take part in the case, and 
they disagree, the award would fail for lack of con¬ 
firmation. If more than two judges sit in the case 
the majority, as seen in Sec. 12, must necessarily 
rule. 

As to whether then any given award stands or 
falls depends upon the consensus of international 
opinion. The informality of international review, 
however, is so great as to obscure the judical qual¬ 
ity involved in the procedure and as suggested in 
Sec. 14, makes it difficult to- believe that there is any 
international law or court in existence. 

The writer, however, is persuaded of the truth 
of four propositions: (1) International Law exists; 
(2) The International Court exists; (3) The sover¬ 
eigns of all nations constitute the International 
Court exofficii; (4) Arbitrators are ancillary to the 
Court; and hence the award is not necessarily final, 
but may be rejected, whenever the International 
Court (one or more Sovereign-Judges sitting in the 
case) finds it the product of either accident, fraud, 
mistake or duress. 

Sec. 23. The Process by Commission .—The 
Venezuelan Commission was an important develop¬ 
ment in international procedure. 

For reasons involved in the then mystery of 
British administration that government was slow to 
consider the subject of arbitration of the boundary 
line in controversy. As the only wise expedient left 
open to him, President Cleveland took action in the 
matter by the appointment of a Commission to re¬ 
port to him the facts and law of the case. The de- 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


49 


sign of this ancillary proceeding was to inform his 
judical conscience in a matter pertaining to the ex¬ 
ercise of his international police-power. 

The ground upon which international jurisdic¬ 
tion arose was that anarchy prevailed in all the reg¬ 
ion affected by the boundary dispute, and the right 
of international intervention in that territory accord¬ 
ingly existed for the purpose of securing a settle¬ 
ment of the controversy. 

The appointment of this Commission stimulat¬ 
ed the British government to- such consideration of 
the matter as to finally lead it to agree to arbitra¬ 
tion through the processes of The Hague Tribunal, 
and pending the work of the Commission the case 
was there submitted and disposed of, and the Com¬ 
mission dissolved without completing its investiga¬ 
tion. 

Some have thought that this Commission was 
ex parte in character. But this seems to be a mis¬ 
taken conception of the nature of the proceeding. 

It seems rather as above suggested, that Presi¬ 
dent Cleveland was acting in his judical capacity as 
an international judge ex officio in the vicinage in 
the exercise of international police-power. 

As explained in Sec. n, the International 
Court is always in session and any one judge con¬ 
stitutes a quorum. Any other international judge 
had the right to intervene in the case. But in the 
absence of any such intervention President Cleve¬ 
land to all intents and purposes constituted the In¬ 
ternational Court. He might have invited England 
to unite with him in the selection of the Commis- 




50 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


sion and probably would have done so if that gov¬ 
ernment had signified any desire to sit in the case. 

The creation of the Commission was the judi¬ 
cial act of the highest court in the world, one of the 
judges thereof sitting in the case. It was the initi¬ 
ation in a judicial way of the final settlement of a 
grave international controversy, which in former 
civilizations would have led to war. 

It is doubtful whether President Cleveland and 
his able legal adviser, Secretary Olney, fully appre¬ 
ciated the judicial quality inhering in their pro¬ 
cedure. International jurisprudence was then far 
more rudimentary than as at present developed. Up 
to that time it lacked this valuable precedent to 
guide the way; and the many other precedents that 
have since occurred. 

We can now see that the coral reef was then 
very nearly above the waves and those two indefa¬ 
tigable workers possibly budded wiser than they 
knew. It is ours to admire this product of the ages 
and wonder as we trace the divine hand of the Mas¬ 
ter-builder of modern international jurisprudence. 
Rather than deny its existence let us enjoy its 
fruits. 

Sec. 24. Distinction Betivecn Arbitration and 
Commission .—The award in arbitration, as ex¬ 
plained in Sec. 22, has the force of a verdict of a 
jury and cannot be impeached except for accident, 
fraud, mistake or duress. But the report of a Com¬ 
mission is analogous to a report of a master in 
chancery, which does not prevent, but rather sim- 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


51 


plifies and facilitates investigation de novo, by the 
court. 

The Venezuela Commission referred to in the 
last section was merely designed to enlighten the 
conscience of the President as to the law and facts 
of the case, and was not intended to be as conclusive 
as the verdict of a jury or award in arbitration. It 
was unreservedly subject to his judicial review and 
approval. He could set the report aside either in 
whole or in part, or confirm it in whole or in part; 
or revise it as he should see proper; and when his 
judicial conscience should be finally enlightened to 
his satisfaction he would reach a conclusion as to 
the facts of the case and proceed accordingly. 

If it was purely a ministerial matter in which 
he was engaged he would not have needed the aid 
of a learned Commission, or any such form of jurid¬ 
ical circumspection. The belief of the writer is that 
the Commission was a judicial body, but subject 
entirely to the control of the appointing power— 
differing in this respect from arbitration, the award 
in which can only be assailed on the grounds above 
mentioned. In evolving this Process by Commis¬ 
sion President Cleveland reflected honor on his ad¬ 
ministration ; for it is a most effective method, and 
is always available and seems destined to supersede 
arbitration, which is less expeditious and less 
elastic. 

So far as the United States is concerned, one 
especial advantage of Process by Commission over 
Arbitration is that the latter cannot be resorted to 
except by the concurrence of the senatorial branch 




52 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


of our treaty-making power. But the President can 
create the former on his own motion at any time. 
And he can also unite with other sovereigns in the 
appointment of a Joint Commission to advise the 
international conscience in any given case, without 
infringing on the prerogative of the Senate. 

The North Sea Commission is the latest and 
most valuable precedent along this line. Others will 
occur in the course of time; and as the years come 
and go international practice will crystalize around 
this method of procedure. 




CHAPTER V. 


THE CASE IN MANCHURIA. 

Sec. 25. Statement of the Case .—For a few 
years prior to 1885, the Chinese put forward a 
claim to the exclusive control of the Corean Penin¬ 
sula. The Japanese, however, regarded Corea as 
under international jurisdiction, and claimed a voice 
in its control; and this claim was similar to and as 
well founded as our Monroe Doctrine. 

Finally, April 18, 1885, a treaty between China 
and Japan was signed by which both nations agreed 
to recall their troops from the peninsula and to im¬ 
mediately inform the other if either should con¬ 
clude to send troops to Corea. 

In 1894, after nearly ten years of peace, a re¬ 
bellion occurred in the peninsula against which the 
nominal local government was unable to contend. 
International jurisdiction at once revived and both 
China and Japan sent armed forces ostensibly at 
least to supress the insurrection. Japan, however, 
in disregard of the rights of China as an interna¬ 
tional intervenor, took the King of Corea into cus¬ 
tody and required him to put his seal to’ a document 
requiring the military forces of China to' leave the 
peninsula. 

Several encounters followed between the Chin¬ 
ese military and naval forces and those of Japan. 


54 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


Among others the Japanese sunk a Chinese trans¬ 
port, and 1,200 soldiers were drowned. 

Finally, August i, 1894, both nations issued 
declarations of war; in the course of which in the 
ensuing eight months the Japanese were invariably 
successful and China sued for peace, and a treaty 
between these belligerents was finally concluded and 
ratified. Among the terms of this treaty, there was 
granted to Japan, Port Arthur, a naval fortress cap¬ 
tured from China, and an indemnity of one hundred 
and seventy million dollars. 

Russia, however, was planning to extend a 
branch of her Siberian railway south to the ice-free 
port of Port Arthur. The Czar accordingly pro¬ 
cured France and Germany to unite with Russia in 
a demand that Japan should accept an additional 
indemnity of thirty million dollars, and release all 
claim to' Port Arthur. The Mikado reluctantly 
yielded to this demand and evacuated Port Arthur. 

Subsequently, the Boxer insurrection occurred 
in China, and the local government was practically 
set at naught. Russia, England, Germany, France, 
Japan and the United States intervened and restored 
the tottering Chinese dynasty. 

In recognition of the services of Russia in both 
these wars, China granted the Czar the right to 
build a railway to Port Arthur, and dominion over 
the city and practically of all Manchuria. The rail¬ 
way was accordingly built, constituting an impor¬ 
tant link in the earth’s girdle, six thousand miles 
from Port Arthur to St. Petersburg; and not only 
so but the fortifications at Port Arthur were greatly 





INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


55 


strengthened and a strong naval squadron was 
anchored in that harbor. During the years follow¬ 
ing, the Japanese watched these Russian maneuvers 
and of course wondered at them, and seemed to 
have reached the conclusion that the Russian power 
in Manchuria and the east must be broken or Japan 
must perish; and quietly prepared themselves for 
the inevitable momentous struggle. When they were 
ready for the struggle, they found a pretext for war 
in the unsettled condition of the boundary line be¬ 
tween Manchuria and Corea. 

The unsettled boundary line exposed Man¬ 
churia to international jurisdiction and hence in 
rushing their soldiers into that region the Japanese 
were not guilty of invasion. It was simply a case 
of armed intervention in a territory in which Japan 
as an International Intervenor had as much right as 
Russia. If Russia had had her fences up, if the 
boundary line between Manchuria and Corea had 
been clearly defined and established, then Japan in 
crossing into Manchuria would have been an in¬ 
vader, and amenable to the International Police- 
Power for such a breach of international peace. 

It follows, therefore, that in his military opera¬ 
tions the Mikado has not exceeded his international 
jurisdiction. 

Sec. 26. Japan’s Illegal Naval Assault .— 
While as seen in the last section, the military opera¬ 
tions of the Mikado have been within his interna¬ 
tional jurisdiction yet it must be confessed that the 
first naval assault upon the Russian squadron in the 
Port Arthur harbor cannot be so easily vindicated. 




56 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


We have already seen, in Sec. io, that the sea 
is the world’s highway, and all nations are entitled 
to use and enjoyment thereof. 

This assault then involved a previous judg¬ 
ment by the Mikado, that the Czar had forfeited his 
right to the use and enjoyment of the sea; and not 
only so, but his throne also; for, as seen in Sec. io, 
the sea is essential to national life, and sovereignty, 
cut off from the use and enjoyment of the sea, must 
perish. 

Now, in this procedure, the Mikado violated 
two plain legal principles: (i) All jurisprudence of 
which we have any knowledge requires that the ac¬ 
cused shall have notice of the proceeding against 
him. No notice was given the Czar, no opportun¬ 
ity to show why his fleet should not be destroyed. 

The judgment of the Mikado' that the Czar’s 
fleet was not entitled to the use and enjoyment of 
the sea was an exceedingly grave adjudication. If 
this judgment of forfeiture, without notice, warn¬ 
ing or condemnation procedure and without oppor¬ 
tunity of appealing to the consensus of internation¬ 
al opinion is justified by the present state of evolu¬ 
tion of international law, it would seem that we 
should either reject the idea of international police- 
power, or else the international Sovereign-Judges, 
by conference, commission or treaty should devise 
some rules of international procedure before for¬ 
feiture of sovereign-right to the use and enjoyment 
of the sea. 

The writer expresses no opinion as to the guilt 
or innocence of the Czar, at that time. That sub- 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


57 


ject is not within the purview of the present discus¬ 
sion. The present controversy is with the Japanese 
interpretation of international procedure. It im¬ 
presses one with the thought that the Mikado does 
not consider that there is any due process in interna¬ 
tional police-power and in fact all international law 
is a myth. And if this is true, then the Mikado is 
an international outlaw. For he cannot appeal to 
the law and at the same time deny by his conduct 
the existence of the law. 

(2) The Mikado did not have the judgment of 
the International Court in hi's favor. It is true, as 
already seen in Sec. 11, that the International Court 
is always in session and any one Sovereign-Judge 
constitutes a quorum; and the Mikado had his own 
sovereign-judgment in his favor. But the Czar is 
also one of the Sovereign-Judges and it must be 
conclusively presumed that his judgment is against 
the theory of forfeiture of his throne; for the very 
fact that he occupies it is an affirmation before the 
world of his belief in his right to his throne. We 
have then, in this Manchuria case the Mikado’s vote 
against the Czar but made nugatory by the Czar’s 
implied vote for himself. 

The Mikado’s case against the Czar then must 
fail, unless some other sovereign-power will inter¬ 
vene in the case and decide against the Czar. And 
thus one by one the opinion of all the Sovereign- 
Judges might be brought into the case; and as 
shown in Sec. 12, the consensus of opinion of the 
majority of these judges, taking part in this case 
would be an international adjudication of the mat- 




58 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


ter. There is no evidence that any sovereign except 
the Mikado had adjudged that the Czar had forfeit¬ 
ed his right to the use and enjoyment of the sea 
and to his throne. There is some surmise that the 
British government was in secret sympathy with 
Japan; but whether this is true or not, formal ex¬ 
pression has never been given to it. And therefore, 
so far as we have any knowledge, the Mikado had 
no International Judgment against the Czar, and 
his destruction of the Russian squadron was inter¬ 
national usurpation and clear breach of the peace of 
the sea and he is undoubtedly amenable to the in¬ 
ternational police-power for that assault. 

There seems to be no escape from this conclu¬ 
sion ; unless we take the theory that international 
law is a myth and dream of enthusiasts and interna¬ 
tional chaos reigns. And if all outside of national 
limits is in a chaotic condition how puerile is the con¬ 
stant reference of diplomats and sovereigns to inter¬ 
national law in their intercourse with each other and 
how elusive and delusive is the international police- 
power, of which President Roosevelt speaks in his 
last annual message, already referred to; and hov) 
inconsistent is Japan’s constant appeal to interna¬ 
tional law_, while at the same time denying its 
existence. 

Sec. 27. Recapitulation of Japan’s Breaches 
of International Peace .—From the last two sections 
we are able to discern three instances of violation of 
international law upon the part of the emperor of 
Japan: (1) The disregard of the principle of inter¬ 
national courtesy in seeking to exclude China from 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


59 


her rightful voice as one of the International Inter- 
venors in Corea in 1894. Japan thus moved the 
dial of progress back to the idolatrous civilization 
of Greece and Rome; under and by virtue of which 
Alexander the Great wept because he had no more 
worlds to conquer and Rome became the mistress of 
the world, the only nation on the globe. On the 
contrary the civilization of the future will court¬ 
eously regard the rights of each and every Interna¬ 
tional Intervenor to a voice in the settlement of the 
given international case; and thus war between na¬ 
tions will be avoided. (2) Coming down ten years 
later, we find this same idolatrous Japan assailing 
and destroying the Russian squadron in the Port 
Arthur harbor without any notice or warning what¬ 
ever. If such a procedure is justifiable, it can only 
be upon the idea that international chaos reigns. 
Russia should have had her “day in court,” if inter¬ 
national jurisprudence exists. This she was denied. 
The Mikado certainly was not proceeding in any 
judicial capacity in that matter. And if he was not, 
then he exceeded his jurisdiction; for he has no jur¬ 
isdiction in the sea, except as one of the interna¬ 
tional judges, in the exercise of international police- 
power; and under that power would any interna¬ 
tional jurist seriously claim that property and hu¬ 
man life can be destroyed without notice or oppor¬ 
tunity to show cause to the contrary ? 

(3) The Mikado had no international judg¬ 
ment condemning the Russian squadron to destruc¬ 
tion. His assault was so unexpected that the inter¬ 
national world cannot be deemed to have concurred 
or acquiesced in the ^rne. 





60 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


Our sudden assault upon the Spanish squadron 
was preceded by reciprocal declarations of war and 
proclamations of neutrality; which were tantamount 
to the international outlawry of both Spain and the 
United States, and implied international consent to 
the destruction of lives and property of both bellig¬ 
erents. But the Japanese assault preceded all dec¬ 
larations of war and all proclamations of neutrality. 
So that Japan had nothing upon which to found in¬ 
ternational consent to the destruction of the Rus¬ 
sian squadron. 

The only point in common between the two 
cases is the suddenness of the assault and electrifica¬ 
tion of the world. They were both startling, per¬ 
haps equally so. But beyond this the Japanese as¬ 
sault is utterly without precedent in modern war¬ 
fare. To find its counterpart, we must go back to 
the siege and destruction of Troy or Carthage in 
ancient days, when international law was without 
form and void. 

But in these modern days, dry land has appear¬ 
ed. International promontories are in sight and in¬ 
ternational light-houses are searching the sea, with 
the searchlight of truth. Now, can idolatrous Japan 
swing our Christian civilization back to that ancient 
chaotic period? 

Sec. 28. The Mistake of the Mikado .—If in¬ 
stead of beginning hostilities, the Mikado' had in¬ 
vited all nations or at least the leading Powers to 
unite with hiqi in the formation of a Joint Advisory 
Commission to report to the Powers the facts and 
the law applicable to the situation in Manchuria, it 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


61 


is morally certain the final result of the inquiry 
would have secured to Russia merely a railway zone 
down through Manchuria to Port Arthur; and Ja¬ 
pan would have been granted control of all the ter¬ 
ritory east of that zone and China all west thereof. 
At least the prospect of such a consummation was 
worthy of an effort along that line. If the world 
had dealt treacherously or unfairly with Japan, it 
would have been time enough then for Japan to 
have become an Ishmaelite among nations, with 
every nation’s hand against it and its hand against 
every nation. But no such result would have hap¬ 
pened. For along with the evolution of interna¬ 
tional jurisprudence, there has come into the world 
an international conscience that seeks to know and 
declare the truth; and this would have been done in 
this case. The President of the United States, one 
of the final International Judges, could never be a 
party to a corrupt decree; no more than the Chief 
Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Ju¬ 
dicial integrity has come into modern civilization 
and has come to stay; and what is said of one of 
these International Judges, may be said of all, in¬ 
cluding the Mikado and the Czar. All of them can 
be relied on to finally declare the facts and law of a 
case as they understand them. 

It is the belief of the writer that the Russo-Ja¬ 
panese war might have been averted if the Mikado 
had resorted to this Process by Commission. No 
sovereign believing in international police-power 
could refuse to appoint a member of such a Com¬ 


mission. 




62 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


Russia could have gracefully bowed to the con¬ 
sensus of international opinion, as finally established 
by the aid of this process. But Russian pride and 
honor rebelled against the dictation and usurpation 
of the Mikado, who is merely a co-ordinate Sover¬ 
eign-Judge of international space, no more, no less. 

War between nations will never disappear from 
this planet until the truth is generally recognized 
that no one nation has the right to dictate to an¬ 
other nation. In the event of disagreement, the 
only and true remedy is to secure the consensus of 
international opinion, the court of last resort in 
all international matters ; and the best known meth¬ 
od of initiating a speedy and honorable settlement 
is the Process by Commission. 

As we witness the consequence of the mistake 
of the Mikado, in the awful travail in Manchuria, 
the vast sacrifice of blood and treasure, should we 
not well and carefully consider this lesson? 

And how much better would an Annual Gen¬ 
eral Assembly or Conference of Sovereigns be to 
which such a case or other international questions 
could be formally presented, considered and de¬ 
cided. H!ow it would secure every righteous sov¬ 
ereignty forever and establish peace and prosperity 
throughout the world! 

Sec. 28. The Mistake of the Czar .—Up to 
the time of the Russian counter declaration of war 
against Japan, the Czar had the better international 
position. For as already seen the Mikado had 
usurped authority and condemned his fleet to des¬ 
truction without due process of law; and the Czar 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


63 


was accordingly in an excellent position to invoke 
the protection of the International Police-Power in 
his use and enjoyment of the sea and right to his 
throne, and ask the appointment of a Manchurian 
Commission. If this course had been pursued, how 
easily all matters could have been honorably and 
amicably settled. 

But unfortunately the Czar instead of issuing 
a simple declaration of purpose to confine his mili¬ 
tary and naval operations to the exercise of his na¬ 
tional and international police-powers, suffered him¬ 
self to be betrayed into a declaration of war of in¬ 
vasion of Japan to> wreak vengeance an hundred 
fold. By this expressed purpose he forfeited his 
right to' the use and enjoyment of the sea; for as al¬ 
ready seen a war of invasion involves a plain sole¬ 
cism and the use of the sea in furtherance of such a 
war constitutes a breach of international peace. 
When we remember that logic is of the es¬ 
sence of the divine nature, is it any wonder 
that the Czar along the line of his announced pur¬ 
pose of invasion and reprisal has met with such dis¬ 
aster on land and sea, notwithstanding his prayers 
for aid? 

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves; * * * 
for it is written vengeance is mine; I will repay, 
saith the Lord.” 

The Almighty has reserved vengeance unto 
Himself. He is manifestly the only Judge qualified 
to administer vengeance; for He alone knows all the 
facts of any given case. Let us beware of infring¬ 
ing on the divine jurisdiction in such matters. And 




64 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


not only so, but to save the world from the just 
Mosaic principle of lex talionis, He gave his Son 
Jesus Christ the Righteous, as a sacrifice for sin and 
ordained in the Sermon on the Mount that the old 
law of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, 
should no longer prevail, through the efficacy of the 
cross of Christ for the sinner. 

If then instead of harboring the purpose of in¬ 
vasion and vengeance, the Czar had formed and an¬ 
nounced the purpose to confine his military and 
naval operations to the exercise of his national and 
international police-powers, and had impeached the 
Mikado, proposing to intervene in Japan and re¬ 
move him from his throne, as a disturber of the 
peace of the sea, and establish there a govern¬ 
ment that would respect the peace of the sea, he 
would then have shown a courteous recognition of 
the international jurisdiction in the case to settle 
and adjust the whole matter. His right to the use 
and enjoyment of the sea would then have been 
guaranteed by the International Police-Power in¬ 
stead of the condition of an international outcast, to 
which he was reduced by proclamations of neutral¬ 
ity. Such proclamations can never be issued against 
a sovereignty engaged only in the exercise of its 
national and international police-powers. 

Sec. 29. In Pari Delicto .—It is possible that 
before the Russo-Japanese controversy is finally set¬ 
tled an International Commission will be developed 
to consider at least the respective claims of the bel¬ 
ligerents to indemnity. It is probable that all other 
questions can be settled by the belligerents them- 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


65 


selves. Such a Commission, if it shall ever be or¬ 
ganized, will find it difficult to allow either the Mi¬ 
kado or the Czar any indemnity. For the reason, a$ 
already seen, neither Russia nor Japan come into 
court with clean hands. The Mikado was guilty of 
a breach of international peace in the first naval as¬ 
sault, without due process of law. And the Czar 
was equally guilty, when he issued his declaration 
of war of invasion of Japan. They are then in pari 
delicto; and both became international outcasts, by 
proclamations of neutrality .issued by all other na¬ 
tions. If the Czar would confess his breach of in¬ 
ternational peace by the proclamation of war of in¬ 
vasion and reprisal, and proclaim his purpose to 
confine his military and naval operations to the ex¬ 
ercise of his national and international police-pow¬ 
ers, he could at once take shelter under the Interna¬ 
tional Police-Power, inhering in all nations com¬ 
bined, from the Japanese claim for indemnity and 
again secure the right to the use and enjoyment of 
the sea. If, however, as a peace-maker he sees proper 
to deliver to Japan a reasonable sum as indemnity, 
he not only will prove himself a glorious Monarch, 
but will be called a child of God; for this beatitude 
is promised to the peace-maker. Such an exem¬ 
plified exegesis of Christianity would be a mighty 
triumph of the Prince of Peace; in which event the 
Mikado might need the prayers of Christendom; 
for the Japanese, having no living God to worship, 
would probably pay divine honor to their Emperor; 
which the history of the past shows to be an exceed¬ 
ingly destructive form of delusion. 




66 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


The prayer of Christendom should be that Ja¬ 
pan may be brought into the fold of the Great 
Shepherd. 

The crucified and risen Christ will yet in some 
way be glorified through this awful Russo-Japanese 
travail. Somewhere in this case we may expect the 
King of kings and Lord of lords to reveal His 
hand. 




CHAPTER VI. 

THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD. 

Sec. 30. The Blood of the Soldier .—The 
reader is perhaps ready to agree with the writer in 
the expectation that war between nations will dis¬ 
appear from this planet. We cannot, however, ex¬ 
pect that the avocation of the soldier will cease at 
the same time; for the exigencies of the police-pow¬ 
er, both national and international, will possibly re¬ 
quire armies and navies for an indefinite period. 

The heart of man seems to require the shed¬ 
ding of blood. This faculty of the soul feeds itself 
upon the blood of the bull fight—matador or beast 
—in Spain; and the blood of the prize fight and 
other forms of bloody sport or pastime in the 
United States. 

The Roman feast was gladitorial blood. The 
ancient Jews fed on the blood of animals in their 
religious rites. But it is explained in the epistle to 
the Hebrews that the blood of animals could not 
make the comers thereto perfect. 

Neither can the various forms of bloody pas¬ 
time so often seen in these modern days accomplish 
such perfection. 

On the contrary, they tend to a degenerate civ¬ 
ilization, exhibiting brigandage and other symp¬ 
toms of national decay, as in Spain. In fact, the 


68 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


general prevalence of bloody pastimes in a nation 
seems to be the precursor of war. 

Immediately preceding the outbreak of the war 
of 1861, our thirst for blood was sharpened by the 
bloody recitals of the Heenan-Sayres prize fight. 
The blood of that war, however, obliterated the 
thirst for prize fighting for an entire generation. In 
recent years, however, the thirst for bloody recitals 
revived and culminated in the legalized prize fight 
in Nevada. 

But while we were drinking at that saturnalia 
the Maine was blown up and we were hurled into 
the vortex of war. 

The blood shed in war is the blood of the first 
born and is nobler blood than that of vain-glorious 
prize fighters, and tends to a better civilization, and 
hence as a choice between them the Almighty seems 
to abandon nations to war,—soldier manhood being 
nobler than that developed by bloody sport. 

The prize fight July 3, 1905, in the presence of 
a mixed audience of five thousand men and women, 
at Reno, Nevada, the bloody recitals of which have 
just been published broadcast in our metropolitan 
press, is a sign of the times. If this nation must 
have blood, and will not turn to the blood of Christ, 
as urged in the next section, how will we escape the 
vortex of war? 

The blood of the yeomanry of the land is more 
precious than that of vain-glorious prize fighters. 
If we reject the blood and peace of Christ, will not 
God feed us on the next best and most available 
blood ? , 




INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


69 


Shall we not profit by the lessons of the past? 

Sec. 31. The Blood of Christ .—The greatest 
force conducing to the world’s peace is the blood of 
Christ. This alone can make its votaries perfect. 
The sacrifice of the soldier can make men free, but 
efficacy unto holiness has never been claimed for it. 
This is recognized in the Battle Hymn of the Re¬ 
public: “As Christ died to make men holy, let us 
die to make men free.” In fact, civil liberty springs 
out of religious liberty. “Where the Spirit of the 
Lord is, there is liberty.” Our forefathers came to 
America originally in search of religious liberty and 
out of their Christian manhood there grew a love 
of civil liberty, and these two great forces have al¬ 
ways permeated our civilization. As Christ had 
died for them so they gave their lives for their 
country. 

In the blood of Christ there is salvation from 
all other forms of blood-shed. “He was wounded 
for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, 
the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and 
by his stripes we are healed.” 

In proportion as we lose sight of the cross, God 
will abandon us to other forms of violence—first 
bloody pastime, then war. 

Pending the transition of this world from 
bloody pastime to an absorbing interest in the shed 
blood and broken body of Christ the baptism of at 
least internecine war seems inevitable. Except for 
divine grace civil war can break out in the United 
States at any time. One of the chief dangers that 
menances us is the strike, which breeds mobs, law- 




70 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


lessness and exposes us to international interven¬ 
tion, if foreigners should happen to be injured in 
person or property in such cases. How easily blood 
flows indiscriminately in these contests between 
capital and labor. The insurrection spark may 
start the conflagration at any time. The blood of 
the soldier may do in such cases, but the blood of 
Christ is the best remedy. It will save the convert¬ 
ed capitalist from the spirit of extortion, greed and 
oppression, and labor from turbulence and rebellion. 
Let us then ponder the great truth of the human ap¬ 
petite for bloody recitals and not quench it, but 
feed it on the blood of the Redeemer, and through 
the knowledge of Him develop true civilization and 
peace, not only at home, but in sister common¬ 
wealths. 

When we hear Christ crucified ourselves, then 
we can preach Him to the Czar and the Mikado— 
not as a Nemesis, but as the Saviour of the world 
by the sacrifice of Himself. 




Prayer. 


Our Father, Who art in heaven, we thank 
Thee that Thou hast taught us to come to Thee, 
through the merits of our Redeemer. We bless 
Thee for this salvation for all who truly repent of 
their sins. Wilt Thou graciously help us to wor¬ 
ship Thee in spirit and in truth. Help us to hallow 
Thy name and serve Thee with reverence and re¬ 
ligious veneration. 

We praise Thee for the City of the Living God 
and its inhabitants—the spirits of just men made 
perfect; the innumerable company of angels; the 
general assembly of the church of the First Born; 
God, the Judge of all; and Jesus, the Mediator of 
the new covenant whose blood speaketh better 
things than that of Abel. 

We bless Thee for the revelation of Thy divine 
attributes, wisdom, love, mercy and omnipotence; 
for Thy Word and the prosperity thereof; for the 
Church of Christ and its wonderful growth and hal¬ 
lowed influence; for the sun, moon and stars that 
declare Thy glory; for this planet and all the bless¬ 
ings thereof; for our country, and state, and homes, 
and all the prosperity thereof. We believe that we 
live and move and have our being in an omnipres¬ 
ent God and that He is a Rewarder of them that 
diligently seek Him, and that Thou art able to do 
for us more than we ask or think if Thou wilt. 

We beseech Thee through the merits of our 


72 


INTERNATIONAL PEACE. 


crucified and risen Saviour to heal the unhappy con¬ 
troversy in Manchuria and to hasten the prophetic 
time when nation shall not make war against na¬ 
tion ; baptize us with continued prosperity and peace 
and save our first-born from the sacrifice of war. 
Nevertheless, in all these things Thy will and not 
our wills be done. Help us to live in submission to 
and harmonization with the divine will. 

“Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all 
His benefits; Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; 
Who healeth all thy diseases; Who redemeth thy 
life from destruction; Who crowneth Thee with 
tender mercies and loving kindness; Who satisfieth 
thy mouth with good things SO’ thy strength is re¬ 
newed as the eagle.” “O, that men would praise 
Thee, Lord, for His goodness and mercy and won¬ 
derful works to the children of men.” Wilt Thou 
graciously pour out upon us this availing spirit of 
praise and thankfulness? We thank Thee that Thou 
hast revealed unto us that praise is comely and well 
pleasing to Thee. We ask these blessings, not in our 
own righteousness, but in the righteousness of Thy 
well beloved Son, Who gave Himself for us. Amen. 


THE END. 





/ 


V 






> 


» 





